LDS Church 'clarifies' the clarification on LGBT children

[JakeStarkey]

So...no oral sex for you, eh?

Your sick, get help

That means no knob on the job, I think.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Never, ever allow the LDS to define scriptural meaning. You will otherwise wander around with Doofus and the Mad Hatter.

Still waiting for that scripture?????

 

[JakeStarkey]

Never, ever allow the LDS to define scriptural meaning. You will otherwise wander around with Doofus and the Mad Hatter.

 

[tyroneweaver]

So...no oral sex for you, eh?

Your sick, get help

That means no knob on the job, I think.

Showing your true colors. Mom must be proud

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mom always liked me best.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WATCH: Thousands of Mormons Plan to Abandon the Faith This Weekend | Advocate.com

A Utah attorney is planning to help thousands of Mormons formally leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after LDS leaders announced a new policy barring children of LGBT people from baptism until they are 18.

Attorney Mark Naugle told Salt Lake City TV station KIVI that he has already heard from an estimated 1,400 people who would like his help filing formal letters of resignation, which are required to officially cut ties with the Mormon Church and remove one's name from the church rolls that list all members worldwide.

Naugle will also attend a demonstration Saturday afternoon that organizers are billing as a "Mass Resignation from Mormonism Event."

At press time, 995 people indicated that they planned to attend the event held at City Creek Park in Salt Lake City, according to the event's Facebook page. Noting that the event is "for anyone ready to resign from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and those who wish to support them," demonstrators plan to gather at the park to finalize and sign paperwork, then march en masse to Salt Lake's Temple Square to deposit the letters in a mailbox near the Church's international headquarters.

Organizers promised that an attorney "affiliated with the event" will be on hand to "offer advice and to make sure our resignations are processed immediately and without ward leader intervention," and two notary publics will be present to notarize the letters of resignation.

The new policy, which appeared in an online update to the Mormon Church's layperson leadership manual on Friday, declares that "a natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabitating, may not receive a name and a blessing." The update also, for the first time, lists marrying a person of the same sex as "apostasy" — the rejection of church teachings that requires excommunication.

Since the change was revealed, Mormon leaders have responded to growing backlash by portraying the new policy as one that "originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years." The policy was also reportedly intended as a "clarification" that same-sex couples have a legal right to marry nationwide, but "that is not a right that exists in the Church."

But many LGBT Mormons aren't buying that logic, pointing that it seems to fly in the face of recent moves viewed as conciliatory towards LGBT members, including the LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance recently passed in Utah with the outspoken support of the Church.

 

[onefour1]

Its a situation where they don't want to put children in a position to have to choose between their faith and their parents. It's not like they can never be baptized, but they only need to wait until they are an adult to make their own decision. This has been a long standing position in the church. Joseph Smith taught,

"...instead of commencing with children, or those who look up to parents or guardians to influence their minds, thereby drawing them from their duties, which they rightfully owe these legal guardians, they should commence their labors with parents, or guardians; and their teachings should be such as are calculated to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hears of the children to the fathers; and no influence should be used with children contrary to the consent of their parents or guardians; but all such as can be persuaded in a lawful and righteous manner, and with common consent, we should feel it our duty to influence them to gather with the people of God. But otherwise let the responsibility rest upon the heads of parents or guardians, and all condemnation or consequences be upon their heads, according to the dispensation which he hath committed unto us; for God hath so ordained, that His work shall be cut short in righteousness, in the last days; therefore first teach the parents, and then, with their consent, persuade the children to embrace the Gospel also. And if children embrace the Gospel, and their parents or guardians are unbelievers, teach them to stay at home and be obedient to their parents or guardians, if they require it; but if they consent to let them gather with the people of God, let them do so, and there shall be no wrong and let all things be done carefully and righteously and God will extend to all such His guardian care."

So in almost all cases, gay guardians do not want their children to believe that their acts are sinful. So naturally most of them would not want their children to be baptized into the church which teaches that their acts are sinful. The church's policy is only to respect the parental and guardian relationship of those who are responsible for the children. Once they become of age, then they can make their own choices as an adult.

Since its a policy, it can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, porker.

Joseph Smith would have done nothing to interfere with children coming to the baptismal font regardless of the home situation as soon as age eight.

 

[onefour1]

Joseph Smith would have done according to what he said. Read "Duties of Elders" in the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith". Look under Section Two 1834-37, p.86

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joseph Smith would have done according to what he said. Read "Duties of Elders" in the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith".

Joseph would have done what he wanted, not what you say. He had a deep, abiding love children, having lost so many of his and Emma's own.

He would have said, "You all are on crack cocaine and either you straighten up or I will do for you what I did for Oliver. Got it?"

He would have said, "Be like DirecTV not PorkerCable. You are mental."

 

[tyroneweaver]

Nonsense, porker.

Joseph Smith would have done nothing to interfere with children coming to the baptismal font regardless of the home situation as soon as age eight.

I don't care if The Pope, or Billy Graham or even Joseph Smith or your Mom told you, you could have homo sexual relationships.
I want you to show us from the Bible passages that support the life style you're pushing on this forum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, porker.

Joseph Smith would have done nothing to interfere with children coming to the baptismal font regardless of the home situation as soon as age eight.

I don't care if The Pope, or Billy Graham or even Joseph Smith or your Mom told you, you could have homo sexual relationships.
I want you to show us from the Bible passages that support the life style you're pushing on this forum.

That is not the right question. You are one who turns scripture on head.

Look at the plural marriage questions.

Good, not, yes, maybe, not sure. No, you are not one who gets the scripture at all.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Nonsense, porker.

Joseph Smith would have done nothing to interfere with children coming to the baptismal font regardless of the home situation as soon as age eight.

I don't care if The Pope, or Billy Graham or even Joseph Smith or your Mom told you, you could have homo sexual relationships.
I want you to show us from the Bible passages that support the life style you're pushing on this forum.

That is not the right question. You are one who turns scripture on head.

Look at the plural marriage questions.

Good, not, yes, maybe, not sure. No, you are not one who gets the scripture at all.

Just show us dumb Mormons a Biblical passage that sez, that the sexual immoral, and the effeminate go where God and Christ are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, porker.

Joseph Smith would have done nothing to interfere with children coming to the baptismal font regardless of the home situation as soon as age eight.

I don't care if The Pope, or Billy Graham or even Joseph Smith or your Mom told you, you could have homo sexual relationships.
I want you to show us from the Bible passages that support the life style you're pushing on this forum.

That is not the right question. You are one who turns scripture on head.

Look at the plural marriage questions.

Good, not, yes, maybe, not sure. No, you are not one who gets the scripture at all.

Just show us dumb Mormons a Biblical passage that sez, that the sexual immoral, and the effeminate go where God and Christ are.

You have no moral understanding of the purpose of holy scripture. You are a Mormon. You change scripture to fit your desires. Witness plural marriage, Native Americans, Africans, the role of women, and so forth and so on. Joseph Smith would have nothing to do with you today.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Feminist Mormon Housewives are now chiming. Many of these women are active LDS, holding church callings in the wards and stakes. Here we go.

Why The Clarification Clarifies Nothing

------------------


So, the Church Newsroom just released a clarification on the whole new policy regarding same-sex couples.

What it effectively clarified is that it's really just affecting families where the same-sex couple is the primary caregiver. Everyone else is still in the green.

And, it's still all to protect the children.

Well, I can appreciate wanting to protect children. I think it's very troubling to have children feel torn between something they think is important and necessary and right and the people they love who are not doing those important, necessary and right things. It's certainly not a fun place for any child.

But the reality is that any child is already placed in that situation the moment any adult takes them to Church, and they realize that their parents, loved care-givers or anyone else doesn't measure up to all the ideas - whether that's smoking and drinking that keeps them out of the temple, whether that's inactive parents, who are not sealed in the temple, whether that's a gay dad, who's left the family to live with a partner, a relative of has left the Church, or a child of polygamous parents. The children will feel torn and bad, no matter what. Unless you keep them out of Church. Which apparently is NOT what we're shooting for. In other words, they can come and participate, but not receive ordinances, because the ordinances will make them feel torn. Not the teachings.

[and much more at the link above]

This is the same church that used to arrange marriages to child brides and advocated polygamy not so long ago.

They are still a mile behind the times

Not so long ago? The Church Banned Polygamy in 1890 Wanna try again?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Feminist Mormon Housewives are now chiming. Many of these women are active LDS, holding church callings in the wards and stakes. Here we go.

Why The Clarification Clarifies Nothing

------------------


So, the Church Newsroom just released a clarification on the whole new policy regarding same-sex couples.

What it effectively clarified is that it's really just affecting families where the same-sex couple is the primary caregiver. Everyone else is still in the green.

And, it's still all to protect the children.

Well, I can appreciate wanting to protect children. I think it's very troubling to have children feel torn between something they think is important and necessary and right and the people they love who are not doing those important, necessary and right things. It's certainly not a fun place for any child.

But the reality is that any child is already placed in that situation the moment any adult takes them to Church, and they realize that their parents, loved care-givers or anyone else doesn't measure up to all the ideas - whether that's smoking and drinking that keeps them out of the temple, whether that's inactive parents, who are not sealed in the temple, whether that's a gay dad, who's left the family to live with a partner, a relative of has left the Church, or a child of polygamous parents. The children will feel torn and bad, no matter what. Unless you keep them out of Church. Which apparently is NOT what we're shooting for. In other words, they can come and participate, but not receive ordinances, because the ordinances will make them feel torn. Not the teachings.

[and much more at the link above]

This is the same church that used to arrange marriages to child brides and advocated polygamy not so long ago.

They are still a mile behind the times

Not so long ago? The Church Banned Polygamy in 1890 Wanna try again?

After disobeying the law for fifty years. Then the GAs, with the exception of (maybe) Lorenzo Snow continued secret plural marriages for another fourteen years until exposed in the Smoot hearings. Then the church really gave it up. The point then changed to working with AZ and UT LEO to take away FLDS children from the parents in the 1940s and 1950s. You are all screwy on moral authority and what is good for children.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Nonsense, porker.

Joseph Smith would have done nothing to interfere with children coming to the baptismal font regardless of the home situation as soon as age eight.

I don't care if The Pope, or Billy Graham or even Joseph Smith or your Mom told you, you could have homo sexual relationships.
I want you to show us from the Bible passages that support the life style you're pushing on this forum.

That is not the right question. You are one who turns scripture on head.

Look at the plural marriage questions.

Good, not, yes, maybe, not sure. No, you are not one who gets the scripture at all.

Just show us dumb Mormons a Biblical passage that sez, that the sexual immoral, and the effeminate go where God and Christ are.

You have no moral understanding of the purpose of holy scripture. You are a Mormon. You change scripture to fit your desires. Witness plural marriage, Native Americans, Africans, the role of women, and so forth and so on. Joseph Smith would have nothing to do with you today.

BS I've given you the latitude to use any scripture you want.
Since you're so hot on GA's and their foibles.
When I lived on Redwood Road. Calvin Smith lived across from us. His brothers. Sam and Royal bordered the northside of our farm. They were brothers of Joseph Fielding Smith. Joseph Fielding has been in my parents home. He has had dinner in my parents home. I have watch Packer football with JFS in my parents. home.
He told me if the church contradicts the Bible the Bible prevails. He told me if the Book of Mormon were to contradict the Bible, the Bible prevails.
Now I ask in the name of the Bible show me a passage that supports your perverted view????

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Feminist Mormon Housewives are now chiming. Many of these women are active LDS, holding church callings in the wards and stakes. Here we go.

Why The Clarification Clarifies Nothing

------------------


So, the Church Newsroom just released a clarification on the whole new policy regarding same-sex couples.

What it effectively clarified is that it's really just affecting families where the same-sex couple is the primary caregiver. Everyone else is still in the green.

And, it's still all to protect the children.

Well, I can appreciate wanting to protect children. I think it's very troubling to have children feel torn between something they think is important and necessary and right and the people they love who are not doing those important, necessary and right things. It's certainly not a fun place for any child.

But the reality is that any child is already placed in that situation the moment any adult takes them to Church, and they realize that their parents, loved care-givers or anyone else doesn't measure up to all the ideas - whether that's smoking and drinking that keeps them out of the temple, whether that's inactive parents, who are not sealed in the temple, whether that's a gay dad, who's left the family to live with a partner, a relative of has left the Church, or a child of polygamous parents. The children will feel torn and bad, no matter what. Unless you keep them out of Church. Which apparently is NOT what we're shooting for. In other words, they can come and participate, but not receive ordinances, because the ordinances will make them feel torn. Not the teachings.

[and much more at the link above]

This is the same church that used to arrange marriages to child brides and advocated polygamy not so long ago.

They are still a mile behind the times

Not so long ago? The Church Banned Polygamy in 1890 Wanna try again?

After disobeying the law for fifty years. Then the GAs, with the exception of (maybe) Lorenzo Snow continued secret plural marriages for another fourteen years until exposed in the Smoot hearings. Then the church really gave it up. The point it was working with AZ and UT LEO to take away FLDS children from the parents in the 1940s and 1950s. You are all screwy on moral authority.

FLDS are NOT LDS. as you know full well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, porker.

Joseph Smith would have done nothing to interfere with children coming to the baptismal font regardless of the home situation as soon as age eight.

I don't care if The Pope, or Billy Graham or even Joseph Smith or your Mom told you, you could have homo sexual relationships.
I want you to show us from the Bible passages that support the life style you're pushing on this forum.

That is not the right question. You are one who turns scripture on head.

Look at the plural marriage questions.

Good, not, yes, maybe, not sure. No, you are not one who gets the scripture at all.

Just show us dumb Mormons a Biblical passage that sez, that the sexual immoral, and the effeminate go where God and Christ are.

You have no moral understanding of the purpose of holy scripture. You are a Mormon. You change scripture to fit your desires. Witness plural marriage, Native Americans, Africans, the role of women, and so forth and so on. Joseph Smith would have nothing to do with you today.

BS I've given you the latitude to use any scripture you want.
Since you're so hot on GA's and their foibles.
When I lived on Redwood Road. Calvin Smith lived across from us. His brothers. Sam and Royal bordered the northside of our farm. They were brothers of Joseph Fielding Smith. Joseph Fielding has been in my parents home. He has had dinner in my parents home. I have watch Packer football with JFS in my parents. home.
He told me if the church contradicts the Bible the Bible prevails. He told me if the Book of Mormon were to contradict the Bible, the Bible prevails.
Now I ask in the name of the Bible show me a passage that supports your perverted view????

Good memories, I am sure.

Too bad the Church has never followed JFS's guidance. So since the BoM condemns plural marriage (book of Jacob, right), but the Bible approves it, then the Church should support plural marriage. But it does not, and the Church persecutes those who do.

See, even by your understanding, you are inconsistent with scripture.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Feminist Mormon Housewives are now chiming. Many of these women are active LDS, holding church callings in the wards and stakes. Here we go.

Why The Clarification Clarifies Nothing

------------------


So, the Church Newsroom just released a clarification on the whole new policy regarding same-sex couples.

What it effectively clarified is that it's really just affecting families where the same-sex couple is the primary caregiver. Everyone else is still in the green.

And, it's still all to protect the children.

Well, I can appreciate wanting to protect children. I think it's very troubling to have children feel torn between something they think is important and necessary and right and the people they love who are not doing those important, necessary and right things. It's certainly not a fun place for any child.

But the reality is that any child is already placed in that situation the moment any adult takes them to Church, and they realize that their parents, loved care-givers or anyone else doesn't measure up to all the ideas - whether that's smoking and drinking that keeps them out of the temple, whether that's inactive parents, who are not sealed in the temple, whether that's a gay dad, who's left the family to live with a partner, a relative of has left the Church, or a child of polygamous parents. The children will feel torn and bad, no matter what. Unless you keep them out of Church. Which apparently is NOT what we're shooting for. In other words, they can come and participate, but not receive ordinances, because the ordinances will make them feel torn. Not the teachings.

[and much more at the link above]

This is the same church that used to arrange marriages to child brides and advocated polygamy not so long ago.

They are still a mile behind the times

Not so long ago? The Church Banned Polygamy in 1890 Wanna try again?

After disobeying the law for fifty years. Then the GAs, with the exception of (maybe) Lorenzo Snow continued secret plural marriages for another fourteen years until exposed in the Smoot hearings. Then the church really gave it up. The point it was working with AZ and UT LEO to take away FLDS children from the parents in the 1940s and 1950s. You are all screwy on moral authority.

FLDS are NOT LDS. as you know full well.

The point is that having polygamous kiddies was fine before then it was abomination and immoral later.

You are not consistent, ever.